Reinterpreting the Book of Job
Methodology Behind Man’s Job
In my previous post, Man’s Job, I suggested that the story of Job was somewhat similar to the story of Pandora in that it suggests that man is responsible in transforming the chaos around him into order. However, the traditional theological reading of the story comes to a different conclusion, and a good summary of the story can be found via The Bible Project on YouTube. In this post, therefore, I will break down how I came to my modern perspective of the story of Job and why I think it should be interpreted this way.
The Old Version of Job
Essentially, Job is hit by bad luck despite being a good and righteous person. The rest of the story unfolds by focusing on why God would do that. Humans' assumption is that God is just and, therefore, by the laws of justice, only those who have committed bad deeds are to be awarded bad deeds, thereby making the instance of Job receiving misfortune a tenet of an unjust God. The story focuses on God. Who is God? Is he really good? At the end of the story, after Job apologizes for doubting God, his possessions are restored. The moral of the story for the reader, therefore, is to believe in God and never to doubt him.
Critique of this perspective
Does that story hold up to reality? Do people have their things restored once they start to believe in God once again? By things, are people’s character restored by belief in God? Are peoples material possessions restored after believing in God? Do families unite after believing in God? No.
The Frame of Mind this creates – a lack of agency. I personally grew up hoping and believing in God to guide my life so that it would pan out securely. As a former Pentecostal Christian, I wept for the current stagnation I found my family to be in and I pleaded with God to guide us out of it. This type of hope is akin to a request for mercy. It comes from the belief that the future is something totally outside of one’s control and there is only a higher power that can grant one’s wishes to let them through to a better destiny. Such hope, therefore, is akin to asking for good fortune or luck. It puts the individual as a passive onlooker of their life. This is bad for society because it creates dependent human beings. Those who believe in themselves and have agency are those that are the creators of what we see around us. They are the men and women who invented the aeroplane, discovered the cure to diseases, and survived concentration camps.
The Reinterpretation of Job
The Tale of Pandora’s Box shows that restoration occurs when action is taken to restore what was lost. The spirit of hope which counteracts all of the spirits of destruction is not passive but active, for it was in that spirit that the villagers got to action. This demonstrates the true definition of hope as ‘an expectation for a better future based on taking practical measures towards it,’ rather than the ‘wish for a better future without any practical measures towards making it.’
Real life Examples
Let’s take the lesson from Viktor Frankl[1]. The three things which helped him survive in a hopeless situation of the Nazi concentration camps was an attitude that resembled acting as if he would survive. He maintained purposeful work, love, and courage by taking notes of observations of the psychology of humans, which would eventually become his construction of logotherapy; he maintained love by thinking of his wife and her smile; and exercised courage by maintaining a free inner world and supporting his fellow prisoners to not give up hope.
Similarly, Nelson Mandela[2] studied while imprisoned, completing his Law degree through the University of London and wrote his famous memoir, 'Long Walk to Freedom', in secret away from the guards. He was thinking of what he would do to change the future of South Africa when released.
Both examples serve as an additional testament to Fyodor Dostoevsky’s[3] observation that human beings need to pursue meaningful work in order to have a reason to live. In Notes from a Dead House (1862) he wrote,
“It once came into my head that if it were desired to reduce a man to nothing—to punish him atrociously, to crush him in such a manner that the most hardened murderer would tremble before such a punishment, and take fright beforehand—it would be necessary to give to his work a character of complete uselessness, even to absurdity.
Hard labour, as it is now carried on, presents no interest to the convict; but it has its utility. The convict makes bricks, digs the earth, builds; and all his occupations have a meaning and an end. Sometimes, even the prisoner takes an interest in what he is doing. He then wishes to work more skilfully, more advantageously. But let him be constrained to pour water from one vessel into another, or to transport a quantity of earth from one place to another, in order to perform the contrary operation immediately afterwards, then I am persuaded that at the end of a few days the prisoner would strangle himself or commit a thousand crimes, punishable with death, rather than live in such an abject condition and endure such torments. It is evident that such punishment would be rather a torture, an atrocious vengeance, than a correction. It would be absurd, for it would have no natural end.”
Viktor Frankl and Nelson Mandela had an end in sight. They had a goal they looked forward to, even if the odds of reaching it were slim. Dostoevsky overcame his personal depression when he founding meaning in his work.
These extreme examples show that in real life the challenge of overcoming suffering is succeeded when man makes the commitment to be an active participant in the change. The old story of Job, the version which many of us have been accustomed to, provides a placid approach to devastation which is impractical for the world we live in. The world is not just and everything is unequal. That’s just the way it is. It would not be practical for every man on earth to give up when he finds himself in the wilderness. It makes more sense to interpret the text as though it is man’s job to try to sort himself out. And in a way, the story can be viewed to fit that narrative…
1) God and Satan can be viewed as the opposing forces of nature that balance the universe.
2) By questioning God and having discussions with his friends about what is happening to him, one could argue that Job was at work rebuilding what he had lost by starting with making a stronger foundation.
3) God restores his losses is hyperbole to show that those who sow (action) will receive (outcomes).
The book of Job’s ancient origins point to a universal human need - guidance for those suffering in seemingly hopeless circumstances. What should man do in the midst of suffering? Wait on God to save him or get to action? As seen, the story can have either conclusion, but reframing it to fit into our reality maintains congruence to what we know to be true whilst maintaining our human agency.
[1] Frankl, Viktor E. (1959). Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
[2] Mandela, Nelson (1994). Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Little, Brown and Company.
[3] Dostoevsky Fyodor (1862). Notes from a Dead House.